Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) quickly fired back at President Obama after the commander in chief ripped into the senator and his colleague, John McCain (R-Ariz.), for threatening to block any potential nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for secretary of State.

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said “absolutely, without a doubt” Rice’s part in the Benghazi falsehoods would factor into her fitness for the job.

“I’m not entertaining promoting anybody that I think was involved with the Benghazi debacle. We need to get to the bottom of it,” Graham said. “The president has a lot of leeway with me and others when it comes to making appointments, but I’m not going to promote somebody who I think has misled the country or is either incompetent. That’s my view of Susan Rice.”

“When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me,” Obama said at this afternoon’s press conference, noting he hasn’t made final decisions about his second-term cabinet.

“If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody? They should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous,” the president said.

“Mr. President, don’t think for one minute I don’t hold you ultimately responsible for Benghazi. I think you failed as Commander in Chief before, during, and after the attack,” Graham said in a rapidly issued statement.

“We owe it to the American people and the victims of this attack to have full, fair hearings and accountability be assigned where appropriate,” Graham continued. “Given what I know now, I have no intention of promoting anyone who is up to their eyeballs in the Benghazi debacle.”

In a press conference earlier today, McCain smacked down a reporter who asked whether classified documents leaked in the Petraeus scandal are a greater threat to national security than the 9/11 Benghazi attack.

“…I think that the other issue raised is very serious and I think it deserves a thorough and complete investigation. But it does not rise to the level of an attack on an American consulate that took four American lives.”

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Click here to view the 6 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

6 Comments, 6 Threads

1.
rbj

” But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous,””

Gee, didn’t he brag about labeling the attack a terrorist act the next day, during the second debate, with Crowley oh so coincidentally having the transcript right on hand? Presumably they got more intelligence afterwards, showing it had nothing to do with the unseen video. So why feed Rice that false intelligence and put her on all those talk shows?

Unless you wanted to promote the video & how blasphemy is bad & so we need to sign the anti-blasphemy treaty at the UN, thus further curtailing the First Amendment.

While seeing some members of the Legislature ask pertinent questions is a cause for optimism, I am under no illusions that anything will come of it. Our representitives in Washington have proven time and again that they are more interested in the show than doing the right thing. Frankly I expect this entire Benghazi debacle to fizzle out and drift away on the ether. I’m sure it’s all the Republicans fault anyway.

Why Keep things from the people you serve? the obvious to hide something. Why Hide what you kept from the people? Again obvious because you couldn’t manage it. Why recreate Oliver North? Obvious needed someone to take the fall for your failed intentions. All these things that could have been delt with on the tabble of honer speack for themselves = you have none

“When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me,”

You’re goddamned right we do.

There are quite likely photos, video, audio recordings, emails, and transcripts from the evening the President, VP, Secretary of Defense, Natl Security Advisor and others spent in the situation room watching Amb. Stevens and three others die. What we need is a reverse Watergate to get them out in the open. Is there no one with first, second, or even third-hand knowledge of the events willing to show some courage and do what’s right for our country?

It all seems rather simple to me. The UN ambassador has no independent intelligence information available to her. She is in the chain of briefing from department of state and thus would have been briefed by that department since it is the parent organization of the embassy and consulate. Any other briefings would have been made available through the oval office and his NSA team from various intelligence and information sources. In other words, the ambassador was fed the information for public statements to be made from the Department of State and the oval office, the parents of whom she serves.

Shouldn’t be to difficult if congress can get the documentation requested, to prove a lie was conceived for political and campaign purposes. If such a congressional investigation succedes in such proof — then what?